ASHWANI KUMAR vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/16447/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 25-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010884782026

e-Filing Number

19-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/32213/2026

Filing Date

20-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/16447/2026

Registration Date

21-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Coram

Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil

Bench Type

Single

Category

58.1 - GOVT SERVICE (HY) ( 705 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHWANI KUMAR

    Adv. ABHISHEK MASIH

  2. 2.Ashwani Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

  2. 2.Ashwani Kumar

  3. 3.Haryana Public Service Commission

  4. 4.Chairman

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Mr. Justice Sandeep MoudgilView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP/16447/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court partially allowed Ashwani Kumar's petition challenging the Haryana Public Service Commission's HCS recruitment result. The court held that the Commission violated Advertisement Clause 17(xv)(H) by applying ex-servicemen reservation benefits at the preliminary examination stage, when the advertisement explicitly restricted such benefits to the final selection list only. The court directed the Commission to revise the preliminary result in compliance with the advertisement's clear language. However, the court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the final answer key, finding no manifest error in the expert-reviewed answers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/16447/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP/16447/2026 The Punjab and Haryana High Court partially allowed Ashwani Kumar's petition challenging the Haryana Public Service Commission's HCS recruitment result. The court held that the Commission violated Advertisement Clause 17(xv)(H) by applying ex-servicemen reservation benefits at the preliminary examination stage, when the advertisement explicitly restricted such benefits to the final selection list only. The court directed the Commission to revise the preliminary result in compliance with the advertisement's clear language. However, the court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the final answer key, finding no manifest error in the expert-reviewed answers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case